Premeditation

[Brini]

They considered the facts in 'Huck', not 'Anthony'.

HTH

And, what facts of the case are being disregared, in either/both cases?

The Anthony case hasn't even gone to trial, yet.

 

[sleutherontheside]

And, what facts of the case are being disregared, in either/both cases?

The Anthony case hasn't even gone to trial, yet.

Very true ITA.

And.....FWIW.....while the Huck / SOF case duct tape issue held true for that specific case.....it also created precedent. That lovely concept that Judge Strickland continually asks the defense to utilize in their motions. There must be a first for every precedent.....I think that Huck /SOF qualifies.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Duct taping over another's human mouth after the human is dead has specifically been addressed by Florida's Supreme Court and deemed an unreasonable hypothesis:

"The only reasonable reason to tape over another human's mouth is to keep the woman from screaming or breathing" http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Huck.pdf Brent Huck

​

I think this opinion puts duct-taping "after" death on the same level as a Martian-Other-Dude theory and that there will have to be some foundation, like KC testifying, to bring duct-taping "after" death scenario in.

In order for the State to prove premeditated first-degree murder through circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Bedford v. State, 589 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1009 (1992)

​

KC's defense can't just randomly throw stuff out there.

imo

I probably didn't phrase my thoughts appropriately. I agree with your opinion 100%.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Sleuther, How true. over the past few days, I've gone back to reread some of the threads & initial " theories' and "Hypothesis" posted by many members. Many of these were posted before facts, evidence, and and forensic results were established. Of course, few if any , of those theories and hypothesis exist now, ( even by our most prolific sleuthers) because we have more facts in evidence now. We have a body and crime scene now. So as time passes, everyone comes to a newer or different theory, I think, even over this past few days, many of our theories have gone out of the window because of the sighting of Caylee, on the afternoon16th of June. Fortunately, and hopefully, the jury will have even more evidentiary information, more scientific results, maybe even more witnesses brave enough to come forward by the time of the trial. And of course we have the ping maps, phone records, e-mail and voice mail information to guide the timelines. Most of us have come a long way over the past year, from where we were in our original thinking.

ITA.....I for one was operating under the theory that KC was involved in some seedy activity....that Caylee perished due to some sort of accident while in the company of seedy individuals, that they helped her cover, and that in exchange for her silence, they agreed to pay for her defense. As FACTS have been released under the Sunshine State Laws, I have been able to reign in fleeting theories, draw focus on facts and supporting evidence, and reach a reasonable conclusion. The defense wants to argue that KC is innocent and they are victims of the media bus rolling over them....well.....JB provided the keys, gas, and vehicle for the media to ride (the term crazy train comes to mind). Perhaps HE should now plan to erect some speed bumps, caution signs, and barricades in the form of corroborating evidence to support his "claims". Until I see something that holds any weight (and if there were, we would have seen it by now) I maintain that KC is guilty and that it was NO accident. He is complaining about the case being tried in the media.....well then JB......how bout you give us something to shut us up. Smoke, mirrors, and diversionary tactics only go so far.....are you in it fot the long haul or do you plan to use an exit ramp in the near future?

 

[RR0004]

They considered the facts in 'Huck', not 'Anthony'.

HTH

Forgive me, I was weighing in in support of another poster who was citing the Supreme Court's decision and how it could apply to this case. We'll have to wait and see if, in fact, it will come into play here.

 

[Wudge]

Duct taping over another's human mouth after the human is dead has specifically been addressed by Florida's Supreme Court and deemed an unreasonable hypothesis:

"The only reasonable reason to tape over another human's mouth is to keep the woman from screaming or breathing" http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/Huck.pdf Brent Huck

​

I think this opinion puts duct-taping "after" death on the same level as a Martian-Other-Dude theory and that there will have to be some foundation, like KC testifying, to bring a duct-taping "after" death scenario in.

In order for the State to prove premeditated first-degree murder through circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Bedford v. State, 589 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1009 (1992)

​

KC's defense can't just randomly throw theories out there.
imo

Under the (your) doctrine of: "it doesn't matter what the facts in this case are", the trial Judge must use 'Huck' to preclude Casey's defense team from specifically doing what? And when will the Judge issue this directive?

(You just have to love it.)

 

[Wudge]

Forgive me, I was weighing in in support of another poster who was citing the Supreme Court's decision and how it could apply to this case. We'll have to wait and see if, in fact, it will come into play here.

titcr

 

[sleutherontheside]

Another case supports duct tape as premeditation.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2002/unpub/010928-1.htm Pay attention to last paragraph regarding bringing duct tape and box cutter to scene. I think dinner knife in car ( as found in KC's case) could prove similar to box cutter. IF murder occurred in the residence and duct tape did as well, would the knife not be left at the residence?? Why bring it with you and then FAIL to discard it?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

This case is shaping up to be very much in tune with the convictions of Darlie Routier and Cynthia Sommer. A conviction based not on clear and unyielding evidence but rather on the emotions of jurors who don't like the defendant's behavior (a Salem, 1692 style conviction).

Yeah...just like the Salem Witch Trials. Good grief. :banghead:

 

[sleutherontheside]

I don't see how this case can be "in tune with other convictions" when a jury has yet to be seated, a case has yet to be tried, and a verdict has not been rendered. I think only after the trial concludes, could one speculate that the jury based their verdict upon the defendant's behavior.

 

[Wudge]

Another case supports duct tape as premeditation.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2002/unpub/010928-1.htm Pay attention to last paragraph regarding bringing duct tape and box cutter to scene. I think dinner knife in car ( as found in KC's case) could prove similar to box cutter. IF murder occurred in the residence and duct tape did as well, would the knife not be left at the residence?? Why bring it with you and then FAIL to discard it?

Were the victim's hands bound?

 

[wonders]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
This case is shaping up to be very much in tune with the convictions of Darlie Routier and Cynthia Sommer. A conviction based not on clear and unyielding evidence but rather on the emotions of jurors who don't like the defendant's behavior (a Salem, 1692 style conviction).

I respectfully disagree with you. When Susan Smith didn't have eye contact with the media when she was (pleading to have her children returned to her) I knew something was very wrong. When a person party's, gets tat's, shops, and most of all never reports her child missing until her Mother does it and then takes LE to places "where she works, invisananny's apartment" and just plain bold faced lies about everything. Hummmm? What is a reasonable person to think?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Yeah...just like the Salem Witch Trials. Good grief. :banghead:

Were the victim's hands bound?

Yes they were. At this time we don't know if Caylee's hands were or were not, but the absence of duct tape binding the hands of a small child does not negate the fact that it WAS present on her face. I would think duct tape binding hands would be a method to fully retrain an adult whereas it would be easier to restrain a child without binding their hands.

 

[Wudge]

Yes they were. At this time we don't know if Caylee's hands were or were not, but the absence of duct tape binding the hands of a small child does not negate the fact that it WAS present on her face. I would think duct tape binding hands would be a method to fully retrain an adult whereas it would be easier to restrain a child without binding their hands.

Jurors cannot reason to a conclusion without an evidentiary basis having been established at trial. Evidence must be presented that support's Caylee's hands having been bound or evidence must be presented that supports she was restrained when the duct tape went on, otherwise, jurors can't assume, speculate or simply guess that she was bound or restrained.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Jurors cannot reason to a conclusion without an evidentiary basis having been established at trial. Evidence must be presented that support's Caylee's hands having been bound or evidence must be presented that supports she was restrained when the duct tape went on, otherwise, jurors can't assume, speculate or simply guess that she was bound or restrained.

I think you missed my point.

 

[Wudge]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge

SNIP

What is a reasonable person to think?

It might well be too much to ask, but guilty verdicts are supposed to rely heavily on clear inculpatory evidence, not post-crime behavior intakes (such as eye reading, gait analyses, giggle reviews or comparable behaviorial hocus pocus).

 

[Brini]

Jurors cannot reason to a conclusion without an evidentiary basis having been established at trial. Evidence must be presented that support's Caylee's hands having been bound or evidence must be presented that supports she was restrained when the duct tape went on, otherwise, jurors can't assume, speculate or simply guess that she was bound or restrained.

Jurors don't have to have evidence of binding or not binding. They DO have evidence that Caylee's nose and mouth were taped closed.

Not only does the previously cited FL court decision speak to that, anyone who has had to physically restrain an out-of-control toddler, and/or who knows about industrial strength duct tape would see the question as unimportant. A two-year-old, however squirmy, simply has no chance against an adult who outweighs her by 70 pounds.

In addition,. the question of whether KC accidently killed, or let die, Caylee will not come up. KC is sticking with the SODDI defense. Her choice. The jury is not allowed to speculate that there MIGHT have been an accident, in the face of KC's silence.

If KC changed her mind, IMVHO, she's have to take the stand and explain. She would subsequently be shredded like cabbage on cross-X.

 

[Brini]

It might well be too much to ask, but guilty verdicts are supposed to rely heavily on clear inculpatory evidence, not post-crime behavior intakes (such as eye reading, gait analyses, giggle reviews or comparable behaviorial hocus pocus).

It does.

With what areas of the forensic evidence do you disagree?

How about the DNA in KC's car trunk, for example?

BTW-- Quite a few people have been put away on JUST behavioral. SP is just one recent example.

 

[Mystic]

Sleuther, How true. over the past few days, I've gone back to reread some of the threads & initial " theories' and "Hypothesis" posted by many members. Many of these were posted before facts, evidence, and and forensic results were established. Of course, few if any , of those theories and hypothesis exist now, ( even by our most prolific sleuthers) because we have more facts in evidence now. We have a body and crime scene now. So as time passes, everyone comes to a newer or different theory, I think, even over this past few days, many of our theories have gone out of the window because of the sighting of Caylee, on the afternoon16th of June. Fortunately, and hopefully, the jury will have even more evidentiary information, more scientific results, maybe even more witnesses brave enough to come forward by the time of the trial. And of course we have the ping maps, phone records, e-mail and voice mail information to guide the timelines. Most of us have come a long way over the past year, from where we were in our original thinking.

BBM you know last evening I was thinking that we have come a long way in substanuating witness's testimony... since KC gave it to us ping by ping, store video's etc.

I would never buy an accident theory.. her rush to duct tape her daughter, throw her in the trunk, so that she could make it to Tony's on time. Just doesn't work for me.

And the kidnapping scenerio lacks what I'd have to see... her reporting it #1, and umm she made it to Tony's for her date??? the child found that close to home, the 31 days of lying to everyone. Even if there was fear of the kidnapper; she'd have told someone and no way.. no how could she have carried on for 31 days of partying. It's just unreasonable for me to even consider.

Everything points to premed imo

 

[wonders]

It might well be too much to ask, but guilty verdicts are supposed to rely heavily on clear inculpatory evidence, not post-crime behavior intakes (such as eye reading, gait analyses, giggle reviews or comparable behaviorial hocus pocus).

I believe there is plenty of inculpatory evidence that we have seen to convict KC.
I also believe her behavior will come in as to what she was doing to look for Caylee for the time that nobody but her knew that Caylee was missing.